Sunday, July 17, 2011

Arguido questioning of Kate Marie Healy, on the 7th of September 2007, at 11 a.m.

Location: CID Portimão
Of British nationality, the arguida cannot speak or write Portuguese, therefore an interpreter is present, Armanda Duarte Salbany Russell, chosen by the arguida from a list provided by the Consulate.

The arguida’s legal representative, Dr Carlos Pinto de Abreu, is also present.

She now possesses arguida status, and the rights and duties that assist her are explained to her, and she is subject to TIR [“termo de identidade e residência”, the lowest coercion measure that is automatically applicable, and consists of stating one’s name and residence].

She is informed of the facts that befall her, and said that she does not wish to make a statement.
When asked, on the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., when she entered the apartment, what she saw and what she did, where she searched, what she handled, she did not reply.

If she looked inside the couple’s bedroom’s wardrobe, she said she would not reply. When shown two photographs of her bedroom’s wardrobe, and requested to describe its contents, she did not reply.

When asked for the reason why the curtain behind the sofa under the side window, whose photograph was shown to her, is ruffled, she did not reply. She did not reply to the question if someone passed behind that sofa.

When asked for how long she searched inside the apartment after detecting the disappearance of her daughter Madeleine, she did not reply.

When asked why she said right away that Madeleine was abducted, she did not reply.
Presuming that Madeleine had been abducted, why she left the twins alone at home to go to the Tapas to raise the alarm, even because the supposed abductor might still be inside the apartment, she did not reply. Why she did not ask the twins right away what had happened to their sister, or why she did not asked them later on, she did not reply.

When questioned about having raised the alarm at the Tapas, what exactly she said, which words she used, she did not reply.

When asked about what happened after she raised the alarm at the Tapas, she did not reply. When asked whether she had a mobile phone with her at that moment, she did not reply. When asked why she went to alert her friends instead of shouting from the balcony, she did not reply.

When asked who contacted the authorities, she did not reply. When asked who participated in the searches, she did not reply. When asked if anyone outside of the group learned bout Madeleine’s disappearance during the following moments, she did not reply.

When asked if any neighbour had offered to help after the alarm about the disappearance, she did not reply.

When asked what the expression “we let her down” means, she did not reply.

When asked if Jane mentioned to her that she’d seen a man with a child, that night, she did not reply.

When asked how the authorities were contacted and which police force was alerted, she did not reply.
When asked, during the searches and already with the police present, in what locations Madeleine was searched for, how and in what manner, she did not reply. When asked why the twins did not wake up during that search, or when they were taken to the upper floor, she did not reply.

When asked whom she phoned after the facts, she did not reply. When asked if she phoned “Sky News”, she did not reply. When asked about the danger of phoning the media, alerting them about the abduction, which could have an effect on the abductor, she did not reply.

Questioned if they requested the presence of a priest, she did not reply.

When asked about the manner in which Madeleine’s face was divulged, if through photographs or other media, she did not reply.

When asked if it is true that during the search she remained sat on her bed inside her bedroom without moving, she did not reply.

When asked about her behaviour that night, she did not reply. And questioned about whether or not she was able to sleep, she did not reply.

When asked if before the trip to Portugal she made a comment about a bad presentiment or presages, she did not reply.

When asked about Madeleine’s behaviour, she did not reply. When asked if she suffered of any illness or took some medication, she did not reply. When asked about Madeleine’s relationship with her siblings, friends and school mates, she did not reply.

When asked about her professional life, and at how many and which hospitals she had worked, she did not reply. Being a doctor, and questioned about her speciality, she did not reply. When asked about whether she worked shifts, at the emergency room or in other services, she did not reply. If she worked every day, she did not reply. When asked if at a given moment she quit working and why, she did not reply.

When asked if it is true that her twin children have difficulty in falling asleep, that they are restless and that it upsets her, she did not reply.

When asked whether or not it is true that sometimes she felt desperate over her children’s behaviour and that it upset her very much, she did not reply.
When asked whether or not it is true that in England she considered the possibility of handing over Madeleine’s guardianship to a relative, she did not reply.
When asked if at home (in England) she gave her children medication and what kind of medication, she did not reply.

During this session, several dog inspection movies of forensic character were shown to her, where the dogs can be seen marking human cadaver odour and human blood traces, and only of human type, and the comments of the expert that headed the diligence can be heard.

After watching and after cadaver odour was signalled in her bedroom next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa that was pushed against the living room window, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.
Also marked, now by the human blood detection dog behind the aforementioned sofa, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.
With cadaver odour being signalled in the vehicle that they rented approximately one month after the disappearance, license plate 59-DA-27, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.

When confronted with the result of the collection of Madeleine’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out by a British lab, behind the sofa and in the vehicle’s boot, situations that were explained above, she said that she cannot explain any more that what she has mentioned already.

When asked if she had any responsibility or intervention in her daughter Madeleine’s disappearance, she did not reply.

When asked if she is aware of the fact that by not replying to the questions asked, she places the investigation, which seeks to find out what happened to her daughter, at risk, she replied yes, if that is what the investigation thinks.
When questioned if she wants to add anything, she replied negatively.

The illustrious defence lawyer is offered the word, he says he has nothing to argue or to request.
At around 2.30 p.m., this questioning is finished.

She says nothing further. Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs, as do the defence lawyer and the interpreter.